Panasonic HDC-SD5 for skydiving?

[scottjaco 0]

I just got this camera.

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Camcorders/Hi-Def-Camcorders/model.HDC-SD5BNDL_11002_7000000000000005702

I hadn't planned on using this for skydiving but has anyone tried it yet? It has OIS, which didn't work well with the Canon HV10 so I'm just curious.

[DSE 3]

It works OK. The OIS does completely disengage, which is the problem with the Canon. On the flip side, the SD5 has a low bitrate, which isn't a problem for low-motion scenes. If you're shooting tandems, it'll squeak by fine. If you're freeflying and shooting lots of flappy fabric that shifts around a lot, you might be less than thrilled.
Very nice little cam, BTW.

[dragon2 0]

One of our cameraflyers tried this camera, it broke within a few months.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[scottjaco 0]

Quote

One of our cameraflyers tried this camera, it broke within a few months.

Eeek! don't scare me!

The bit rate is 13Mbps AVC, which is about average for H.264 cameras. The quality of the picture is fine, I just don't think it's built to take a beating.

It's the first AVC camera (in my opinion) that comes pretty close to HDV quality. It can handle a lot of movement & pans without breaking up, which is generally the biggest weakness with these tapeless cameras.

[DSE 3]

Quote

***

It's the first AVC camera (in my opinion) that comes pretty close to HDV quality. It can handle a lot of movement & pans without breaking up, which is generally the biggest weakness with these tapeless cameras.

"Breaking up on pans" has nothing to do with tapeless.
Panasonic HVX is tapeless, doesn't break up on pans, Sony XDCAM and XDCAM EX are tapeless, no breakup.
The problem is in the compression, and while compression can be a good thing, a low bitrate will bite your ass.
You might feel the SD5 is the "closest" to HDV, but you'll find most discerning camera ops will disagree with varying intensity.
2.5Mbps slower than it's competitor, plus a weaker imager (which Panasonic obtains from it's competitor) means its one of the weaker cameras in the class. Canon and Sony have higher bitrates and better imagers.
The math and hardware don't matter much if you're happy with the camera, but it's quite a stretch to suggest that the SD5 is close or closest to HDV. The CX7 is a slightly better camera as is the HR10 from Canon. Neither of them are close to HDV either. Just as HDV isn't XDCAM, and XDCAM isn't HDCAM. The predominant variant between these formats is bitrate.

[scottjaco 0]

I didn't mean to compare the SD5 to professional HDV cameras or to DVCPRO HD. Thats a whole different class.

Just comparing it to the other SD card based consumer cams.

I don't know the bit rate of the Sony CX7 or the Canon HR10 but I am aware that they are single CMOS sensors, where my SD5 is a 3-chip CCD.

That's actually more important than a slightly lower bitrate.

Just as a means of comparison, I downconverted the SD5 footage to 720/30p using a conversion program and compared it to footage shot with my JVC HD100 and I was very impressed how well it matched up.

Not bad considering my HD100 cost over 5 grand.

Now please, lets not get into how much 720p sucks compared to 1080i After all, my sucky HD100 is 6Mbps less than the Sony!

[DSE 3]

Quote

I don't know the bit rate of the Sony CX7 or the Canon HR10 but I am aware that they are single CMOS sensors, where my SD5 is a 3-chip CCD.

That's actually more important than a slightly lower bitrate.

No. It's not. 3 chip vs single chip is a myth, legend, and market BS. As time marches on, *all* camcorders shall eventually be single chip. *All* of the new ground-breaking high end cams are single sensor CMOS. CCD reached end of life long ago, and is developmentally dead. CCD is cheaper than CMOS now.

I'm not sure where you're getting the delineation of "professional" HDV and "HDV." There is no divider.
720p is always 19Mbps regardless of the camera that shoots it.
1080i/p is always 25Mbps regardless of the camera that shoots it.
JVC has a marketing nomer called "ProHD" which is entirely hype, the *only* difference between JVC's proprietary ProHD and everyone else' HDV is that JVC, being 19Mbps on a recording medium designed for 25Mbps, uses the additional storage space to store off PCM audio vs MPEG audio. And that's a good thing. Excepting that no NLE on the planet can read it, so if you can't access it, it's of zero value.

DVCProHD doesn't figure into the mix at all. Aside from bitrate, your SD5 has greater spatial resolution than any camera that supports the DVCProHD format.
It's ALL about the compression and bitrate. Glass is very important too, as is the spatial and temporal resolution. All things being more or less equal (which the CX7, HR10, and SD5 are), it boils down to bitrate. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not going to get into the debate of 720p vs 1080p, because it's moot, but the HD100U is indeed, a sucky camera. Even after the repair to the split screen issue. Which is why it was the shortest-lived HDV camcorder ever.
However, if you're going to do conversions, do them properly and convert 1080i into 720p60, not p30.

[scottjaco 0]

Quote

No. It's not. 3 chip vs single chip is a myth, legend, and market BS. As time marches on, *all* camcorders shall eventually be single chip. *All* of the new ground-breaking high end cams are single sensor CMOS. CCD reached end of life long ago, and is developmentally dead. CCD is cheaper than CMOS now.

Not True. 3-CCD is still better than CMOS. It's also good when matching footage to other 3-CCD video cameras.

Quote

JVC has a marketing nomer called "ProHD" which is entirely hype, the *only* difference between JVC's proprietary ProHD and everyone else' HDV is that JVC, being 19Mbps on a recording medium designed for 25Mbps, uses the additional storage space to store off PCM audio vs MPEG audio. And that's a good thing. Excepting that no NLE on the planet can read it, so if you can't access it, it's of zero value

The HD100 records MPEG layer 2 audio at 384Kbps not uncompressed PCM. This is incorporated into the 19.2Mbps stream. Every major NLE system supports the HD100.

Quote

but the HD100U is indeed, a sucky camera. Even after the repair to the split screen issue. Which is why it was the shortest-lived HDV camcorder ever.

Never had split screen problems on my camera, and the HD 100/200 series camera is by no means dead. It's been quite sucessful despite it's quirks.

Quote

if you're going to do conversions, do them properly and convert 1080i into 720p60, not p30

Why? My HD100 has a max frame rate of 30p. The idea was to match the footage to my main camera to see how they compared.

[Fast 0]

Quote

stuff

I recognize that you are new to the video forums scott. I don't know how much you have read here, but you haven't posted much at all. Do you realize you are arguing about some pretty specific things with someone who is a professional in the video world outside of skydiving? Someone who is well known in the industry, gets to see most cameras before they even come out and trains people how to use the really high end stuff. I am sure there is a laundry list of other accomplishments that DSE has too.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

No. It's not. 3 chip vs single chip is a myth, legend, and market BS. As time marches on, *all* camcorders shall eventually be single chip. *All* of the new ground-breaking high end cams are single sensor CMOS. CCD reached end of life long ago, and is developmentally dead. CCD is cheaper than CMOS now.

Not True. 3-CCD is still better than CMOS. It's also good when matching footage to other 3-CCD video cameras.

Quote

The second half of this paragraph is correct. The first half is not. CCD is dead. Developmentally and mechanically. CMOS at the low end has its quirks, such as rolling shutter, but it is the superior device, and continues to grow in leaps and bounds. You'll see two of Hollywood's biggest films of 2008 that were shot with CMOS-based camcorders, not to mention all the expected greatness from the RED, with at least 3 films I'm aware of, currently in production. All CMOS-based.

Quote

JVC has a marketing nomer called "ProHD" which is entirely hype, the *only* difference between JVC's proprietary ProHD and everyone else' HDV is that JVC, being 19Mbps on a recording medium designed for 25Mbps, uses the additional storage space to store off PCM audio vs MPEG audio. And that's a good thing. Excepting that no NLE on the planet can read it, so if you can't access it, it's of zero value

The HD100 records MPEG layer 2 audio at 384Kbps not uncompressed PCM. This is incorporated into the 19.2Mbps stream. Every major NLE system supports the HD100.

Quote

You're the person that suggested "Professional HDV vs HDV" and only JVC has that nomenclature. The 100U doesn't have the ProHD moniker, but the 110/200/250 do. We own them, FWIW, I wrote the industry bible on HDV. In other words, I'm quite familiar with the format.
BTW, "every NLE" hasn't supported the HD100, it took nearly two years before FCP or Avid supported long GOP progressive in a 23.978 cadence.

Quote

but the HD100U is indeed, a sucky camera. Even after the repair to the split screen issue. Which is why it was the shortest-lived HDV camcorder ever.

Never had split screen problems on my camera, and the HD 100/200 series camera is by no means dead. It's been quite sucessful despite it's quirks.

Quote

The HD100U was discontinued very quickly in favor of the 110 due to split screen and other issues dogging it, such as extremely short battery life and others. If you didn't see split screen, it's because you purchased yours after it had been upgraded to an "A."
Just one of many split screen discussions
Another one

Quote

if you're going to do conversions, do them properly and convert 1080i into 720p60, not p30

Why? My HD100 has a max frame rate of 30p. The idea was to match the footage to my main camera to see how they compared.

Quote

Because of the way frame cadences function, you'll get a close comparison in the deinterlace (depending on the method in which you chose to deinterlace) by converting 1080i to 720p at 60fps. It's merely a doubling of the framerate, it's not like you see much difference in the chroma or luma. It's temporal.

At the end of the day, neither of our opinions really matter, it's what you like vs what you don't. My world in terms of testing the cameras, is fairly clinical. In a clinical setting the SD5 doesn't match the quality of the CX7. In an emotional one (which can't be measured) perhaps it does. I own both, and prefer the cleaner image the CX7 has. I like the better manual features of the Panny, but at the end of the day, it's about pictures, not convenience. The RED camera, for example, is probably the least convenient camera on the market today, but it offers tremendous pictures at an affordable price, so you're seeing very high end directors of photography using it, even though it means employing a couple of extra people on the set. It's only about the pictures. And the picture quality in great part, is determined by bitrate.

[PharmerPhil 0]

I hope we don't squash debate based on someone's newness to the forum (scottjaco has at least been on dropzone.com longer than either you or DSE, if not on the video forum). It is just this sort of give and take that I come to the forum for. Yes, DSE has brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to this forum, and his contributions are very welcome. But let's not suggest someone back off if they happen to disagree with him.

I am personally very interested in the audio part of the discussion. I just shot a two-hour Xmas concert (mostly choral) and used my old DSR-200 as one of three cams just so I could feed my main audio to it (16-bit PCM uncompressed). I do wish there had been better audio options adopted in the HDV format. (I know, not really skydiving related...)

[scottjaco 0]

Quote

You'll see two of Hollywood's biggest films of 2008 that were shot with CMOS-based camcorders, not to mention all the expected greatness from the RED, with at least 3 films I'm aware of, currently in production. All CMOS-based.

Here's a theatrical feature shot entirely with the HD100.

http://www.sonypictures.com.au/movies/gabriel/

Secondly, you are comparing the RED-1 to a consumer based AVC camera. Apples & Oranges. That CMOS in the RED-1 is more expensive than any AVC based consumer camera.

Quote

it took nearly two years before FCP or Avid supported long GOP progressive in a 23.978 cadence.

But they supported 30p editing. Even I-movie supported 720/30p the entire time.

Quote

The HD100U was discontinued very quickly in favor of the 110 due to split screen and other issues dogging it

The HD110 is electronically the same as the HD100 as far as picture acquisition. Here is my reference:
http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/HDTV/desc/hd110_diff.html

I did get the "A" upgrade when it was released.
It doesn't help people with Split Screen since the issue is based on bad QC from JVC requiring re-calibration of the twin DSP.

[DSE 3]

Scott, you're missing every point I've made. You feel CCD's are better. Fine. Explain that to Sony, Ikegami, Canon, JVC, Panasonic, Grass Valley, who are all using CMOS in their lower end, and in some of the higher end camcorders. CMOS is the future, my friend. See it how you wish to see it, but this is the one thing I do every day, 24/7. I work in this industry.
You want to point to a film made with the JVC 100? Who cares? For every one of those, I can point to features made with PD150's. So what? Means nothing. The HD100 is discontinued. Theproblem with the camcorder wasn't due to QC, it's due to faulty components that couldn't be switched out electronically, otherwise it would have been a firmware fix. Look at page 61 of the second edition of the "HDV: What You NEED to Know" book, the split screen that you earlier said you had no problems with.
The point was, and still is, the HD100U is the shortest-lived camcorder in HDV history. Regardless of whether it's electronically identical to the HD100. There is a reason the model number was changed out, and it's entirely due to the multitude of problems the HD100U had.
And I have one. You're invited to purchase it if you're interested.

Either way, no point in arguing this further. There are the facts, and there are opinions. I've done what I could to separate the two. You choose to be selective, that's OK too. no one purchased the HD100U for 30p, whether we're talking about how "24" experimented with it on their set, or we're talking about independent film. Film out can't happen from 30p. 30p as an acquisition source is predominantly an also-ran. 24p, 25p, 50p, and 60p are where the money is, and always has been.
You said "All major NLE's have supported the 100U. OK, they supported HALF the 100U, and not the half that the industry bought.
I'm not a big fan of 24p for most functions, but in this discussion, it's really all that matters. The HD100U was aimed at independent film, just as the 110/200/250 are. BTW, please see last year's Sundance Film Festival HD House presentation where I presented the HD250 with Angie lenses. I love the cam for what it is.

[scottjaco 0]

How much do you want for your HD100?

I might want to take it off your hands.

There were plenty of work arounds to get 24p into FCP including 3rd party software solutions for capture.

Also, I've read reports of HD110 owners with split screen that end up being sent back for re-calibration.

The HD200/250's seem to be the only cameras that solve the issue but they are much more expensive.

The real reason they got rid of the HD100 in favor of the HD110 was to raise the price of the camera by $500. Plain and simple.

Also, it allowed JVC to discontinue their IDX battery promotion.

[DSE 3]

Quote

The real reason they got rid of the HD100 in favor of the HD110 was to raise the price of the camera by $500. Plain and simple.

Also, it allowed JVC to discontinue their IDX battery promotion.

OK, whatever you say. Craig Yanagi, Vice Pres of Marketing/Sales National for JVC says different.

The first published tutorial on getting 24p GOP into FCP is published on my website, and in my book. Heath MacKnight also has written a couple of tutorials on the subject, he works for me.

But what do we know? Apparently not enough.

[scottjaco 0]

Quote

The first published tutorial on getting 24p GOP into FCP is published on my website

That's great but FCP now natively supports 24p.

Your work around solution is no longer needed.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

The first published tutorial on getting 24p GOP into FCP is published on my website

That's great but FCP now natively supports 24p.

Your work around solution is no longer needed.

As previous post indicated, FCS *now* (nearly 3 years after the fact) supports 24p GOP. So does Avid Xpress and Media Composer. Please note the dates of the first edition of the HDV book being November 2004, and the second edition being December, 2006. A lot has changed since both of those editions, as will be reflected in the third addition.
I'd imagine you could find *many* skydiving articles on the web that aren't related to today's technology; the point wasn't about what is valid today, but rather to demonstrate that we've been working with this format for a while.

I don't mind at all having the discussion, until it devolves into a pissing contest related to opinions. I'm attempting to stick to facts so that my personal opinions don't fall into the discussion. Facts are hard to disagree with, so I'll fly my own flag along with the facts here:
~JVC HD100 U is a discontinued, 24p/30p camcorder. It never enjoyed 24p GOP support from any NLE system during its short life. Sony Vegas and Canopus Edius were the first to support it.
~JVC replaced camera with the HD110U, and offered "ProHD," which is JVC nomenclature for how they use the additional bitrate that the 720p HDV format doesn't use in the 25Mbps medium, for audio. No NLE currently supports capture of the ProHD format audio, therefore it may as well not exist. It requires separate passes or paths at the capture stage. It's a very useful thing, however, *if* you don't mind double capture or 2 passes.
~VASST (my company) published a variety of non-native workarounds for the JVC 24p format for not only FCP, but also for every other NLE back in 2004. We've continued to publish various methods of how to work with 24p GOP as relates to Sony, Canon, and JVC. It's a tricky animal no matter how you slice it.
~CMOS chips are the future. Agilent has said that they'll be killing CCD chips in the "near future" (could be 2 days, could be 2 years) , and the new high end camcorders are also going to triple or single CMOS imagers. CCD does not offer the ability to address specific pixels, nor to sample individual pixels in a specific area. Among other benefits, CMOS brings this to the table. CMOS is significantly less temperate and temperature sensitive. The concept of CCD being superior to CMOS is very subjective on an individual basis. Doesn't matter if we're discussing Mysterium or Farges CMOS, the concept is exactly the same.
~I'm one of the guys that announced the HD250 for JVC at Sundance Film Festival last year. In other words, I feel I'm being painted into an anti-JVC corner, and that couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is, the 110U was an early adopters camcorder, and had many problems, thus damaging its name, hence the reason JVC discontinued the camera. It's absurd to suggest JVC discontinued it in favor of the 110U simply to tack $500.00 onto the camera. Retooling, remolding, etc would require far more camera sales than they could possibly make simply to add such a small profit margin. Additionally, the VP of JVC is a close, personal friend, and I've heard both his professional and person position on this subject. They're identical.
At the end of the day, this is more a discussion for DVInfo.net or CreativeCow.net, rather than here, as we're not skydiving with HD100U's, are we?
I know I couldn't. Maybe Laszlo?

{edited to add} Geez, Scott, after going back and re-reading this thread, I sound like a real dick. Didn't mean to.

[newshooter12 0]

I don't believe you sound like a dick, real or otherwise... i believe there was some restraint shown by you guys in not turning the discussion instantly into a flame-fest as i've seen on DZ.com before.

matt

[Laszloimage 0]

I don't see the point to jump with a JVC HD100U
It's too big and we know 1080 is the winner format anyway (of courese 1080p vs. 1080i)
I like the idea of the new Sony XDCAM (the EX-1)
But I would still prefer to jump with the V1U because of its size.
If I was jumping the size and the weight of the JVC HD100U I would rather mount an ARRI-235 35mm movie camera on my helmet...
Norman Kent, Joe Jennings, and Tom Sanders are the experts on that field though.
-Laszlo-

[scottjaco 0]

Quote

I don't see the point to jump with a JVC HD100U
It's too big and we know 1080 is the winner format anyway (of courese 1080p vs. 1080i)

It all depends on how your 1080i camera is achieving it’s claim.

Read this article about 720p vs 1080i
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm

[DSE 3]

Quote

***

Read this article about 720p vs 1080i
http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm

a-that article isn't entirely relevant, even if it were that cams were achieving only 240 lines. The dumbass that wrote it fails to account for Kell and other significant factors.

b-The industry has accepted that 1080 whether p or i, has won. As predicted several years ago.
In an article I wrote 2 + years ago, this was predicted, and I'm just a dumbass on the outside of that part of the industry.
There is no argument from anyone who is remotely connectd with broadcast, production, acquisition, or editing, that 1080 has clearly, cleanly, and all but completely won this battle.
Panasonic was the last diehard of 720, and even Panasonic has awakened, with their new cams all doing native 1080 i/p.
Other than the JVC HDV camcorders, there is no single currently purchasable HD camcorder that does not do 1080.

[scottjaco 0]

Quote

Other than the JVC HDV camcorders, there is no single currently purchasable HD camcorder that does not do 1080.

I guess FOX, ESPN & ABC are in deep trouble then.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Other than the JVC HDV camcorders, there is no single currently purchasable HD camcorder that does not do 1080.

I guess FOX, ESPN & ABC are in deep trouble then.

What in the world does THAT have to do with anything in this thread, Scott????
Did you think that Fox, ESPN, and ABC use only 720 cams? Ummm, the biggest purchasers of XDCAM HD have been ESPN and ABC.
Ever heard of "downconverting?" Ever heard of "upconverting?" It's done every day by hundreds of broadcasters worldwide.
By far, until a couple years ago, the majority of non-filmed television commercials were shot with DVCProHD in 24p which has imagers of varying resolutions, recorded frame size of 960 x 720, upsampled to 1280 x 720 at broadcast, or downconverted to 640 x 480 at broadcast. Now upsampled to 1440 x 1080 at broadcast.
1080 cams are now the predominant HD acquisition format, downsampled to 1440 x 1080 for broadcast/cable, or in the case of 5 particular broadcasters (who are exploring changing their formatting) the signal is downconverted to 1280 x 720, unless it's for SD, in which case it's downconverted to 640 x 480 for broadcast if it's not dual cast.

[scottjaco 0]

Quote

1080 cams are now the predominant HD acquisition format

So you believe interlaced is a superior format to progressive?

[DSE 3]

Quote

So you believe interlaced is a superior format to progressive?

Do you believe 1080 only comes in interlaced flavors?